Being of African descent gives you a massively increased chance of having .... the sickle cell gene. (Cos those without these genes were more likely to succumb to malaria, not coz of anything racist, it's just another example of natural selection. If both your parents carry the gene there's a one-in-four chance you'll get sickle cell.)

My favorite story about recessive genes is when my son was born. The nurse blood typed him in front of me and said he was O+. In my smarmy way I wondered out loud how an A+ father and an A- mother could have an O+ baby. Poor nurse just mumbled something and left. If she had stayed I would have confessed that both my wife and I have close relatives with the O blood type.

Aussie_As:thrgd456: So an injection of sickle cells will give me a longer penis? Sign me up!

So close and yet....

Being of African descent gives you a massively increased chance of having .... the sickle cell gene. (Cos those without these genes were more likely to succumb to malaria, not coz of anything racist, it's just another example of natural selection. If both your parents carry the gene there's a one-in-four chance you'll get sickle cell.)

And having sickle-cell give you a tiny chance you'll be seriously afflicted by malaria - a pretty good trade off for a person living in equatorial Africa who is unlikely to live longer than 60 years or so anyway.

TheJoe03:Coming on a Bicycle: There are plenty of 'part-time homosexuals' (sailors, inmates, bored husbands etc) to disprove the notion that it is purely a genetic thing.

Wouldn't that just be called bisexual? You do have a point, maybe sexuality is all just preference. Some people like blue some people like green some people like whatever.

I am a straight guy who's not into guys, but gets gay people because my taste in women is not that common either (big is good).

I couldn't choose to be gay. I'd very happily go celibate ahead of gay.

It sorta seems (totally uninformed and not researched point here, apologies if either wrong or offensive) that gay people have historically made a better fist (no pun intended) of pretending to be straight than I would of being gay. Or perhaps this explains historically celibate types.

/Used to work with an old bloke who was absolutely flaming and who enjoyed playfully flirting with male colleagues in a funny camped-up Mr Humphries way (that and the IT guys had to keep cleaning gay male porn off his laptop) but who was married with kids as was not uncommon for gays of his age. He got on well with his wife but they carried on more like a couple of sisters than as spouses. Everyone could see what was going on but I heard from someone who'd known them for ages that his wife was apparently devastated when a friend asked her what it was like to be married to a gay guy - it had never occurred to her.

ciberido:brimed03: ciberido: Gdalescrboz: This has to make the gay community breath a sigh of relief. If indeed its a genetic mutation that means it is a disease, which can hopefully be fixed with gene therapy.

in addition to "homophobe (x3)" even before this thread began, I rather doubt it.

Seeing as how you obsessively label other people based on their fark posts, and tend to knee-jerk reaction post, I find it highly likely you suffer from a teensy bit of confirmation bias.

This is example is pretty clearly satire. Even amongst the devoutly religious anti-gay creationist types, no one posts like that.

If you're wrong here, how often have you been wrong in the past? How deeply tinted are your rose outrage colored glasses?

Do you not see the irony in claiming other people are prejudiced bigots, and attempting to back up the claim with perceptions you obsessively record based in faith in your skills at knowing who people are based on what could very well be flippant internet posts.

Occam's Razor states that it's much more likely that you have a problem recognizing satire and maybe a problem with reading comprehension period. It's fark after all, even if you're above average here you could still be pants on head retarded.

Maybe it's population control, maybe there's social benefits for non-reproducing members, maybe the genes would produce a very fertile person of the opposite sex, maybe it's just a quirk. Life doesn't need a 100% survival and reproduction rate. Modern medicine has inflated the low percentage of humans that have been able to reproduce historically and other animals like fish and insects lay hundreds if not thousands of eggs knowing the vast majority are going to die before reproducing.

I have predicted for years that they would find a gay gene.As a christian the bible allows for this and in some cases suggests it.The only Religious people who deny things like this are the ones who dont understand their bible.

tiggis:I have predicted for years that they would find a gay gene.As a christian the bible allows for this and in some cases suggests it.The only Religious people who deny things like this are the ones who dont understand their bible.

I'm all trolled out but you get an 8. I couldn't write that stuff if I was trying.

For starter's it is likely not a single gene, but an aggregation of genes that contribute to an overall inclination towards homosexuality or heterosexuality, ranging from 0% to 100%. Sure some genes likely will contribute a greater weight to this overall inclination, but I doubt that its a simple ON/OFF gene. If it were a simple ON/OFF sort of gene, then yes, it would be rather hard to explain how it gets passed down, aside from those items pointed out all ready (people who are actually gay who are pressured into straight relationships, etc.)

I would also contend that from an evolutionary standpoint, some degree of homosexuality is beneficial. If you have some concept of what the opposite sex finds attractive, you have a better chance of making yourself more attractive to them and reproducing.

Maybe it's population control, maybe there's social benefits for non-reproducing members, maybe the genes would produce a very fertile person of the opposite sex, maybe it's just a quirk. Life doesn't need a 100% survival and reproduction rate. Modern medicine has inflated the low percentage of humans that have been able to reproduce historically and other animals like fish and insects lay hundreds if not thousands of eggs knowing the vast majority are going to die before reproducing.

We are all at the mercy of our DNA molecules in many ways. They are not only the reason for our life and biological function, they have become (in a less tangible way admittedly) the basis for our society, our psychology and our extraordinary success as a species. History confirms they will be the reason for our downfall and replacement with something else too. Something DNA based you can be sure.

In feeding a troll earlier I got bogged down in a pointless discussion which centred about his concept of the word 'normal', as used to define each individual. What is in fact normal is that there will be a range of behaviours observed among the individuals in society and thus for the most part these are what is normal. Doesn't mean I look like you but that doesn't mean either of us must be abnormal. It is normal that some will be straight, some gay, some in between, some not that interested. Same for humans everywhere. Same for many animal species. In broader terms, same wherever DNA happens.

COMALite J:"It's genetic" vs. "It's a choice" is the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy in action. There are other possiblities as well.

Many traits are congenital, which means that one is born with the trait and has it throughout life. Most cannot be altered, and those that can are often only cosmetically altered, and require substantial medical intervention at that. And yet, congenital traits are not necessarily genetic.

Examples of non-genetic (or at least non-inheritable genetic) congenital conditions include (but are not limited to):

• Harelip, Cleft Palate, etc.• Spina Bifida and other neural tube defects (caused by insufficient folate in the pregnant mother's diet).• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS ― caused by alcohol imbibed by the pregnant mother)• Thalidomide Babies (caused by the mother having used the otherwise mostly harmless pharmaceutical Thalidomide)• Any of a number of birth defects caused by the mother having contracted Rubella aka "German measles during pregnancy.• Any of a number of birth defects caused by Rh[esus] blood factor incompatibility between the mother and the fetus (the reason that blood tests are often required for a marriage license, to see if the husband is Rh+ and the wife is Rh− ― this one could be considered technically genetic and in a sense inherited, but is not caused by the direct expression of inherited genes).• Retrolental Fibroplasia (not strictly congenital, but happens very shortly after birth in premies only, and well before normal full-term birth would've happened ― the eyes and lungs are among the last things to develop prior to birth as neither will be needed until after birth, so premies often need oxygen under pressure, but this accelerates the growth of the still-growing retina, causing a column of retinal tissue to grow from the macula area often all the way to the back of the lens, resulting in lifelong blindness ― still a life-long condition that cannot easily be corrected that does not arise from genetics)

ciberido:In the case of male homosexuality, there's evidence of a fraternal birth order effect. I'm not aware of any similar correlation with lesbians.

I saw a report where one group was studying hands in order to determine whether or not there was any validity in palm reading. Of course they logged other demographics during the study, and one was sexual preference.

The study did not uncover anything related to palm reading, but it did uncover an overwhelming correlation between the length of the ring finger and lesbianism.

In their sample group, an unusually large number of women who specified they were lesbians had ring fingers that were longer than their index fingers.

The folks who analyzed these results concluded that there WAS some level of physiological difference between straight and gay. Thus vindicating the term "we're born that way", and making the "choice" argument invalid.

omeganuepsilon:I'm curious if I'm marked at all. I could certainly use a good laugh.

I just want to know how many times I'm marked as anti-feminist. I can think of at least 6. Anti-feminist isn't the same thing as anti-woman, so that's fine by me. I am opposed to self-serving academic circle-jerkery, yes.

What is the point tallying this stuff? So that you know exactly how much to hate or disregard people? Posts should stand alone and speak for themselves. I actually removed all my tags. While it's helpful for remembering people, I find it's a tool that ultimately limits meaningful discourse around here because people just get pigeonholed for saying something once (or twice or x4), and they become reduced to that one thing.

I don't believe this for a second. I've been on fark long enough to know that owning a nice car or a gun causes penis shrinkage and the true cause of homosexuality is displaying disapproval in the homosexual lifestyle which leads to catching the dreaded homophobia which in truth causes homosexuality. Stupid scientists should read fark.

CivicMindedFive:I don't believe this for a second. I've been on fark long enough to know that owning a nice car or a gun causes penis shrinkage and the true cause of homosexuality is displaying disapproval in the homosexual lifestyle which leads to catching the dreaded homophobia which in truth causes homosexuality. Stupid scientists should read fark.

They'd kill themselves once they realized how much money they wasted on all that education.

Several theories exist on how something like homosexuality, which ostensibly reduces the chances of successive reproduction, can be passed on genetically.

1. Gay genes are believed by some to increase fertility in the female relatives of the gay men (and women). This means that the genes are not being passed on by gays and lesbians but by their sisters and their cousins and their aunts.

2. Gays tend to have sex earlier as they struggle with self-esteem and their sexuality. This means they start reproducing earlier. They may also, if closeted, have more children during the reproductive years. Keeps the wife busy and possibly happy. There's an old saying "Lucky the woman who has a homosexual husband". They are attentive, sympathetic, good with children and fooling around behind your back. You may be showered with guilt gifts and he'll never look at your women friends or do it with your mother or sister.

3. Don't forget bisexuals. Exclusive gays are even rarer than exclusive heterosexuals. Bisexual men may father more children.

4. Bisexual and gay women don't have any problem having children. They can always find a man who wants to do it with a lesbian or two lesbians. In many species of birds and animals, gay or lesbian couples are scandalously common. In fact, homosexuality is scandalously common in many thousands of species. Scientists suspect that it has utility and thus promotes the survival and propagation of the species. Numerous theories are current.

5. There is an apparent connection between birth order and the probability of being gay. With or without gay genes, being gay may be congenital. The immune system of women is poorly understood but it sometimes goes wonky. This is more likely to happen with a male fetus. The risk of problems increases with the number of sons a woman has had, so health problems in younger sons of large families is more likely. It is also more likely for them to be gay.

In short, large families with many boys are more likely to produce gay and bisexual sons. Psychiatrists explain this in terms of psychology, but geneticists and doctors lean towards physical explanations.

With women carrying a gay gene predisposed to producing more children by fecundity, with gay men taking more interest in child-welfare, with more gays being born in large families, you can begin to see why the fact that religious conservatives outbreed liberal unbelievers might not eliminate gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minority groups from the world.

It's a sort of cuckoo in the nest effect. The more conservatives breed, the more children they have rebelling against their damn fool belief systems and their inordinate disciplinary measures. Also, the more gays there are.

Mother Nature is sneaky and she pulls some real fast ones. Scientists aren't even sure that natural selection always works to eliminate anti-reproductive genes. As a rule, if a gene is not healthy, it is eliminated, but given the way natural selection works, some pretty stupid genes seem to survive because natural selection fail to work. For example, some of the steps necessary to eliminate a bad gene may actually make matters worse, so the mutations tend to be conserved. Think about politics: how many good ideas can't be put into practice because the steps necessary to realize reforms are contrary to vested interests who will kick up a royal stink if you try to implement changes one logical step at a time?

In short, homosexuality could be one of those things that you'd have to do serious damage to your chances of reproducing in order to eliminate.

Take Roman Catholics--they produce priests and nuns--celebate children. For centuries the number of religious orders and members has been pretty constant--as has the percentage of homosexuals. But if you wanted to increase population growth by removing celibacy from the vows of priests and nuns, you'd have to fight the church. And who would force the brothers and sisters of the priests and nuns to have too many children to compensate for the losses to the clergy? Roman Catholic countries are not only draining off a lot of "surplus population" to maintain a celibate clergy, but they are draining the smartest and the best. Many of whom are homosexuals, since the IQ of homosexuals seems to be a bit higher than the average of heterosexuals.

In theory, Roman Catholic countries ought to be getting stupider fast, but although their IQ seems a bit lower, the clergy do the work of the intellectuals in a Protestant or Muslim society, and they aren't that much less likely to father children than intellectuals are in any society.

Like homosexuals, celibates of other kinds may compensate in ways that keep the population up. Rich celibate aunts and uncles contribute largely to child care, education, medical bills, etc. They are available to baby-sit. They can give references to their cronies thanks to nepotism. And so forth.

In short, homosexuals have no problem reproducing. They just farm it out to the breeding stock.

From the point of view of a conservative, learning that their children are more likely to become atheist, gay, or liberal looks like bad news, but it maintains a social, political and genetic balance that is probably a good thing, all things considered. And what can they do? They can't morally abort fetuses because there's a good chance they won't be the spitting image of Momma and Poppa. They can't exercise birth control. They can't even use the RC approved rhythm method, because having fewer children runs contrary to all their beliefs and instincts.

From their point of view, gays, liberals and unbelievers are bad things. It's hard to see why a Loving Providence would allow them and the fact that Nature does just means shame, shame on Mother Nature. But you can see the fix they are in. They CAN'T eliminate the genetic, social or political causes of things they disapprove of because the system hits back. It's self-regulating and although it's not optimal from an ideological point of view, it is nearly impossible to shift without destroying the system altogether.

Most Americans consider themselves conservatives and by this they mean a dozen different things, but they can't eliminate the things they hate without falling into a tyranny they hate and fear more than sin and liberalism. You could, in principle, kill gays and lesbians, but you'd have to chuck democracy and human rights and religious charity to do so.

Every conservative has a reactionary to his right and a commie to his left. There's no room for movement on many issues. It's a losing battle, and if it were won it would be a Pyrrhic victory, worse than defeat.

Relax. "Sin" is as natural to man as water is to a fish. Stop trying to be a bird-man.

As the great mathematician and theologian said. "Man is neither an angel nor a beast. He who wishes to make man an angel, makes him a beast." "Qui veut faire l'ange, fait la bête." In French, it is a pun on beast and imbecile or fool.

Gyrfalcon:The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!

Nature doesn't always trump nurture. And there are freak combinations of circumstances wherein PeeWee Herman might win a fight with Mike Tyson. But that's not the way you want to be betting, generally. Almost every case I know of where kids were adopted and I knew who the bio parents, or at least mom, were, the kid ended up not only physically- which is kinda obvious, but emotionally and in behaviour like his or her bio parents.

TopoGigo:RobSeace: Coming on a Bicycle: RobSeace: Coming on a Bicycle: Science says homosexuality is learned behaviour.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing "science" with "letrole"...

And *I* am pretty sure that you are confusing 'reading (and selectively quoting) one sentence' with 'reading an entire post'.

Come on, it was an obvious joke... You can't expect to use the phrase "learned behavior" around here without calling to mind The Troll...

Behavior is my surname, you ass.

You know, his appearances are getting rarer and rarer. Before long, nobody will even get that joke.

Somewhere in a dingy bachelor apartment, the sound of the continuously playing intro to a Star Trek: TOS DVD is only muted by the buzzing of flies as they swarm around a bloated, naked 300 lb. corpse seated in front of a computer...

The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!

TOSViolation:TheJoe03: TOSViolation: Aussie_As: TOSViolation: Aussie_As: TOSViolation: They also discovered the Sickle cell gene too, but that doesn't mean we celebrate the fact that people are afflicted with it and refuse to treat them for the condition.

There's a fairly clear genetic basis to race as well. Which ones are you thinking of "treating"?

Race is not an affliction. Homosexuality is an affliction much the same as Pica.

You're hilarious.

Your humor-detection is faulty. This is not a joke. No one should ever WANT to be gay. It's an affliction. No one should want to be agoraphobic or have OCD either. There are plenty of afflictions for which we have no good treatment or cure. Look how many people have cancer. Look how many people are morbidly obese. Very few people WANT to be morbidly obese, but still continue to overeat.

If there was a simple pill that would permanently cure breast cancer, Sickle cell, type 1 diabetes, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, or yes...HOMOSEXUALITY before (or after) symptoms show up, then the patient would be a fool not to take it (assuming no negative side effects).

There is no benefit to being gay. There are plenty of gay people who make perfectly good contributions to the world which would not suffer one bit if they weren't gay. It's not an asset.

Are you really comparing being gay with having cancer? Are you really that stupid? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before I permanently mark you as a troll or just a big time moran. I see gays as a net positive since we are dealing with overpopulation and it helps to have less competition in the baby making game. BTW, sickle cell exists because it protects against malaria.

EXACTLY! The Sickle cell gene does exist for a scientific reason, but the negative effects FAR outweigh the benefits. Not having it is better than having it just the same as NOT being gay is better than being gay. If you really believe homosexuality is natural population control, then ...

Ladies and gentlemen, we have either one of the stupidest posts of all time, right here, or a troll of magnificent proportions.

fusillade762:He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.

What really gets me is the people who claim "sexual orientation is a choice and therefore it shouldn't be protected by law" will scream bloody murder if you try and discriminate against religion. Religion is a choice and there really isn't any room for argument with that point. Why is it ok to discriminate against a choice in sexuality but not discriminate against a choice like religion?

TOSViolation:I've already defined "normal" as being able to procreate with your chosen spouse to directly pass on your own genes (before or after any corrective treatments have been applied) to your offspring who will carry on as your legacy when you die.

TheJoe03:TOSViolation: Aussie_As: TOSViolation: Aussie_As: TOSViolation: They also discovered the Sickle cell gene too, but that doesn't mean we celebrate the fact that people are afflicted with it and refuse to treat them for the condition.

There's a fairly clear genetic basis to race as well. Which ones are you thinking of "treating"?

Race is not an affliction. Homosexuality is an affliction much the same as Pica.

You're hilarious.

Your humor-detection is faulty. This is not a joke. No one should ever WANT to be gay. It's an affliction. No one should want to be agoraphobic or have OCD either. There are plenty of afflictions for which we have no good treatment or cure. Look how many people have cancer. Look how many people are morbidly obese. Very few people WANT to be morbidly obese, but still continue to overeat.

If there was a simple pill that would permanently cure breast cancer, Sickle cell, type 1 diabetes, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, or yes...HOMOSEXUALITY before (or after) symptoms show up, then the patient would be a fool not to take it (assuming no negative side effects).

There is no benefit to being gay. There are plenty of gay people who make perfectly good contributions to the world which would not suffer one bit if they weren't gay. It's not an asset.

Are you really comparing being gay with having cancer? Are you really that stupid?